Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 54 of 78

52 Security Dealer & Integrator / www.SecurityInfoWatch.com October 2018
Central Station Monitoring Resource Guide
would hinder the ability of alarm companies to
make these calls and/or increase the liability
exposure of companies.
The AICC also urged the FCC to adopt a strict
construction of what constitutes an autodialer,
and follow the language in the TCPA. Specifically,
the AICC argued that to be an autodialer:
• Equipment must use a random or sequential
number generator to store or produce numbers
and dial those numbers without human inter-
vention; and
• Only calls using actual ATDS capabilities are
subject to the TCPA's restrictions.
Thus, in order to be considered an ATDS, "the
requisite functions of generating and dialing
random or sequential numbers must actually be
used in making or initiating a call."
The AICC also argued that "called party" should
mean the person intended to receive the call; thus, for exam-
ple, a company would be able to use an autodialer to contact a
wireless device when it has received permission to do so from its
customer, even if the number has been reassigned to someone
who has not given the company permission to call the number.
Reassigned Phone Numbers
The FCC is also considering comments filed on whether there
should be a database of reassigned telephone numbers to help
prevent violations of the TCPA.
The AICC and others argued that the database question is
premature and should not be decided until the FCC rules on the
proper interpretation of "called party." If the FCC finds that "called
party" is the party a company intended to call, as argued by AICC,
then a reassigned number database may not be necessary.
AICC also expressed concern regarding the cost of a database
and the ability of small companies to be able to afford to use it.
The record indicates that creating and maintaining a reassigned
numbers database would be expensive; however, there is no
information on what the cost actually would be.
Further, many commenters argue that the FCC must require
companies that access the database to pay for all associated
costs of developing and maintaining the database, which
means the cost to access the database could also be high.
The AICC argued that if small companies are not able to afford
access to the database and, therefore, are unable to use it, then
they may be precluded from getting any safe harbor protection
from the TCPA.
This, in turn, would either require small companies to forego
making lawful autodialed calls to efficiently contact their cus-
tomers or, if they make autodialed calls without accessing the
database, they will still face class action trolls and tremendous
liability for violating the TCPA.
In addition, it can be expected that cost will not impact larger
companies as much as small companies, and they will be able to
access the database, obtain safe harbor protection and, there-
fore, continue to make calls to efficiently contact customers, to
the detriment of the ability of small companies to compete.
Thus, if the FCC does implement a reassigned numbers data-
base, it must ensure that the database is equally accessibly by all
entities before its implementation.
While this information is current as of Aug. 2018, both of
these proceedings are still pending, and it is not known when
the FCC will release an order to resolve these issues and final-
ize new rules. The AICC will continue to monitor the proceed-
ings, take action as appropriate and inform the alarm industry
of updates. ■
»
Elizabeth Lasko is VP of Marketing and
Communications for The Monitoring Association (TMA).
Learn more at http://tma.us.
A broad interpretation of the
term autodialer would hinder
the ability of alarm companies
to make a variety of calls to
customers, while also increasing
the liability exposure
of those companies.